Killing Wolves Might Protect One Farm’s Cows And Sheep At Expense Of Others . 

protect washington wolves, wolf, wolves, protect the wolves

If states pay attention when they look at both Washington and Oregon from 2016 to 2017, Depredations following their lethal removal slaughter increased not decreased, the have proven Dr. Robert Wielgus Research Accurate

A new study claims government killing of wolves can increase the risk to nearby farms, providing further evidence for the ineffectiveness of the so-called “lethal control” policy approach.

The report also casts doubt on an earlier research paper, which government agencies often use to support the practice.

The research adds to a stack of recent scientific papers that question the often-used practice of killing predators to reduce the chances of attacks on cattle, sheep and other livestock. Wildlife managers across the West trap and kill wolves, cougars and coyotes and other predators, and lethal control has become more common for wolves in Oregon and Washington as their populations have grown. But many scientists contend there’s little good evidence for the effectiveness of those efforts.

Northwest Wolf Populations

The number of wolves has grown rapidly since they first returned to Northwest states. As their numbers grow, the likelihood increases of encounters with cattle and sheep.

Tony Schick/OPB/EarthFix

Published Wednesday in the online journal PLOS ONE, a research team from the University of Wisconsin analyzed 17 years of data collected on wolves and farms in the upper peninsula of Michigan.

They found killing a small number of wolves might potentially reduce the risk of future wolf attacks for the targeted farm by a small amount. But it also increased the risk for nearby farms up to about 3 miles away.

The increase could be from remaining wolves scattering, new ones moving in or fractured packs struggling to hunt elk and turning to easier prey.

“You have this small group of satisfied livestock owners, who might be ecstatic about how successful lethal intervention is on their land,” Francisco Santiago-Ávila, the lead author, said. “While their neighbors are suddenly suffering more losses, and they don’t know why.”

Wolf Deaths and Livestock Attacks

Over the years, confirmed cattle and sheep deaths have increased. The spikes in the number of wolves killed follow repeated incidents of predation on livestock.

Source: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Santiago-Ávila said the combination could result in an inflated perception of the effectiveness and necessity for lethal control. Some studies have found non-lethal wolf deterrents, such as the use of guardian dogs and fencing, to be effective. But they, too, are lacking in solid evidence and their adoption has been inconsistent.

Source: Killing Wolves Might Protect One Farm’s Cows And Sheep At Expense Of Others . News | OPB

Jeff Flake wants to remove federal protections for Mexican gray wolves

protect the wolves, protect mexican gray wolves, phoenix

 

Flake is a fitting name. We need to get these types of officials into court soon while we still have wolves left.

Sen. Jeff Flake is seeking to remove federal Endangered Species Act protections from the Mexican gray wolves roaming Arizona and New Mexico.

Flake, R-Ariz., last week introduced a bill to lift the animals’ endangered status if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determines there are at least 100 wolves in the Blue Range recovery area overlapping the two states’ boundary.

At last count a year ago there were 113.

Shaking off federal protections would place wolves solely under state management. It’s an idea that Arizona ranchers have advocated to limit wolf kills of animals in livestock herds and to end federal regulation complications.

“This is the clear way to get out of the (federal) program and yet still have wolves on the ground,” said Patrick Bray, executive vice president of the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association.

Wolf advocates say such a low population would doom the wolves to extinction, as they already suffer in-breeding and illegal killings.

The 100-wolf threshold grew out of a 1982 recovery plan that the Fish and Wildlife Service wrote when there were no Mexican gray wolves living in the wild. The wolves, a smaller subspecies of the gray wolves roaming Yellowstone National Park and other northern regions, had disappeared from the Southwest and biologists had gathered the last handful from Mexico to start a captive breeding program.

Reintroduction began in 1998, when former Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt was U.S. Interior secretary.

Last November the federal agency updated its recovery goal to 320 wolves in the U.S. At that time Flake called the plan “another federal regulatory nightmare” for ranchers.

Bray commended the senator for trying to rein in the program before the predator’s numbers explode.

“If (100 wolves) was good enough in 1982, it should be good enough in 2018,” Bray said.

SEE ALSO: Gray wolf recovery plan met with criticism

Wolf advocates have long argued that the old 100-wolf goal was just a first benchmark to keep reintroduction expectations realistic, and had no scientific basis. Since then the science — including the biological basis for last year’s plan update — has indicated that 100 wolves cannot be self-sustaining, said Bryan Bird, Southwest program manager for Defenders of Wildlife.

Conservationists thought the new 320-wolf goal too low, he said, but the states supported it. Now, he argued, Flake wants to undo the agency’s experts and their compromises with the states.

“It’s politics instead of science,” Bird said. If protections are removed now, “The species would be virtually guaranteed to go extinct in the wild.”

 

 

Source: Jeff Flake wants to remove federal protections for Mexican gray wolves

Object to and oppose extending cattle grazing in the Upper Green, (36-CFR 218.7) Project 3049

Speakout against grizzly delisting

Object to and oppose extending cattle grazing

in the Upper Green

Your Page clearly stated all Objections emailed by the 8th of January 2018.
 

ATTENTION: Dave Booth
Pinedale Ranger District
29 East Fremont Lake Rd. P.O. Box 220, Pinedale, WY, 82941
[email protected]

David Booth and Objection Reviewing Officer:

Dear Sirs, This is a formal request to add me to list of concerned Citizens who are to be contacted with regard to the scoping of such projects as the Upper Green Grazing Project.

Please put me on your list of citizens to inform of any and all other NEPA projects now and future considered in the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

Protect The Wolves™ Sanctuary A Native American 501c3

Patricia Herman President

Roger Dobson Director

530-377-3031

 

Further  We would like our comment filed and considered in this FEIS process, it was emailed on the 8th per your page.

The National Forest while managed by the Department of Agriculture is forest management in the public trust for all Wyoming Citizens, US Forest Service comes under the aspect of All Peoples, Native American as well as the entire Public of the USA.. I object to a few wealthy landowners, Ranchers and politicians controlling the riparian areas of the upper green.

We have friends and Volunteers that have ridden horseback through the cattle allotments in the Upper Green on numerous occasions, it is beyond disturbing to observe and not fun. The cattle are very aggressive. They have charged our friends horses, They are all over the willows in the river bottom, where a cow and calf moose of which we have far too few cannot compete. I am also commenting on the pollution factor of the water. There is currently case law that establishes Water Protection in Riparian Areas, Case Law already establishes that it need not even be within Reservation Boundaries. Cattle deposit excrement as well as Urine in the water systems which makes it unfit for human consumption as well as spreads disease to other Animals. in riparian areas. – Livestock tend to spend a disproportionate amount of time in and near riparian areas, that cause further degradation, which is not correctable with cattle in those areas. Cattle need to be kept from those Riparian areas to insure that our water quality remains good for all parties involved including wildlife. 

The reality is the cattle are all through the riparian areas at the detriment of the wildlife and really at the detriment of many recreational users of the forest.

We further would like to enter an extremely stern objection to your proposed forage utilization of 60% in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadow areas and all other allotments. This amount of overgrazing leaves nothing present for our Children’s Wildlife Resources. You are thereby creating further problems by allowing this amount of consumption in areas that are feeding areas to Ungulates. If you remove the Ungulates food in the summer, they have nothing to feed on through the winter causing lower lying Ranchers issues when those very same ungulates travel to seek out sustenance, which the creator placed within our National Forests for their own explicit use.

Further it is neither appropriate nor acceptable to allow the use of our forest and make it a cattle first, and other forest users beware, land use. It is Wildlife, Environment and Public use rights first as per the Wyoming Constitution, US Forest Service Grazing Allotments are to be protected for the entire Public which includes all peoples in the USA. These rights are further protected for the Indigenous as well as the Public under the Indian as well as Public Trusts.

I object to the continued cattle grazing in the Upper Green, and also because, the elk reduction in the Bridger Teton National Forest has resulted in a drastic loss of natural food source for Our Sacred Grizzly Bear, Wolves, and other carnivores.

We see that as the National Forest Continues to participate with the WGFD and even with the GTNP in the reduction of our Jackson and other elk herds our carnivores pay a huge price, Humans have no business attempting to manage Mother Natures life forms and using cattle as chum for Predators in the national forest needs to come to a close.

With cattle present, all of our wildlife’s resources depleted at the levels that you are prescribing, the game will be drastically reduced if not gone, which when predators fill the void created by the cattle is their demanded slaughter by Ranchers. The cattle should not be in the forest period. The Old West Mentality that Cattlemen believe they have the right to kill all carnivores essentially on sight and I have read every mortality report of the Grizzly Bear in the upper green 1988 to 2014 and know bear are shot by the ranchers and it does not take a seasoned criminal defense attorney to see that fact.

These cattle operations do not respect the balance of nature required to operate within the the Publics National forests. If the cattle are allowed in the forest the rules to protect the other wildlife must be strict. Limit the cattle use of the riparian, willowed areas, by creating strict buffer zones, require dogs, protecting the cattle on site at all times to deter predators. Require range riders to protect the cattle and to remove all dead cattle immediately so there can be no chumming of predators to the cattle. Cattlemen are not allowed to kill apex predators, Grizzly Bear and wolves, WGFD is required to manage and record these incidents, by regulations still lacking for grizzly bear management at the state level.

For these reasons and additional which would have been detailed had I been included in the scoping as requested previously I object to and oppose extending cattle grazing in the Upper Green, (36-CFR 218.7) Project 3049.

 

Norway’s Wolves are on the Brink of Extinction. Please sign the petition!

The wolf has been blamed for livestock losses just like here in the United States because of irresponsible livestock producers. Each year there are over 2 million sheep released into the forests & mountains of Norway without supervision. You think that might be a temptation for wolves on wide open land just like here in the United States?

Barely 2% of livestock losses are from wolves and over 100,000 sheep die for other reasons.  Still, Norway decided to ahead with a wolf hunt which began on January 2nd and ends February 15th. It would be the largest mass slaughter in 40 years! Norway is set on wiping out most of the population.

The wolf is now critically endangered in Norway with only around 56 wolves in all of southern Norway and killing 42 of then would wipe out the population that’s been carefully revived over the past four decades.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, “Norwegian adoration for nature is a vital ingredient in the country’s national identity.”  Yet they slaughter hundreds of whales each year. Last year 880 whales were killed and now they want to kill the few remaining wolves.  They do not deserve one tourist dollar from anyone! Not one product from Norway should be purchased.

Many are hoping that with enough public outcry worldwide we could possibly stop this hunt from continuing. Please sign the petition and share with everyone. https://www.opprop.net/ja_til_ulv_i_norsk_natur_nei_til_stortingets_utrydningspolitikk#sign 

For those that tweet, there will be a tweet sheet ready by 12:00 pm EST on Sunday, Jan. 7th provided by “In the Shadow of the Wolf”

https://intheshadowofthewolf.wordpress.com/2017/11/21/save-our-wolves-%C3%B0%C2%9F%C2%87%C2%B3%C3%B0%C2%9F%C2%87%C2%B4-tweetstorm/   

Thank you~ L.G 

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar

Twitter Feed

Categories